Jump to content

Change Mode

News For Those Who Oppose The 2nd Amendment


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The entire Constitution is subject to interpretation. If someone doesn't agree with a particular interpretation of an amendment, it doesn't mean they oppose the amendment. Just that interpretation. For example, we have freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constution but it does have limits.

Very true. It is a matter of interpretation.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read my links? It seems you deliberately went to a well known anti-rights website for your "proof". I have links not only from pro-rights sites but also from government agencies that did studies to prove guns were more dangerous than anything else only to be proven wrong everytime. Also, they made remarks that the accidents and murders with guns are grossly exaggerate in anti-right sites and studies.

Yes and no.

 

I did read your links, although not the third one.

 

I did not deliberately go to a 'well known' anti-rights site as I have no knowledge of what a pro or anti rights site is. I Googled for information about gun deaths in the world and that was simply one of the places I came to. If the figures that are on the site are wrong, then show me the correct ones and I'll retract the post.

 

I also stated in an earlier post that I agreed that banning certain types of guns was a slippery slope to banning all guns. I don't think that outlawing a particular type of gun would do much good at all.

 

I also stated that my opinions were purely subjective. Believe me, I have no reason nor desire to argue with you, just stating my opinion on an emotive issue and supplying some data to support my thinking. Not saying I'm right or wrong, but that's my opinion.

 

 

Henry8866 - you're absolutely right, it is no ones business what America does with it's constitution. If you guys want to have guns then fine. I will just say again that I feel very happy living in a country where having a gun is not the norm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, its the person behind the gun that kills. The person has the control whether to shoot or not.

 

The problem lies in what the gun will be used for.

Regardless of whether I agree with owning guns or not, I absolutely agree with you on this point.

 

If not guns, then knives, sticks, bare hands etc. If a person means to do you harm they will find a way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no.

 

I did read your links, although not the third one.

 

I did not deliberately go to a 'well known' anti-rights site as I have no knowledge of what a pro or anti rights site is. I Googled for information about gun deaths in the world and that was simply one of the places I came to. If the figures that are on the site are wrong, then show me the correct ones and I'll retract the post.

 

I also stated in an earlier post that I agreed that banning certain types of guns was a slippery slope to banning all guns. I don't think that outlawing a particular type of gun would do much good at all.

 

I also stated that my opinions were purely subjective. Believe me, I have no reason nor desire to argue with you, just stating my opinion on an emotive issue and supplying some data to support my thinking. Not saying I'm right or wrong, but that's my opinion.

 

 

Henry8866 - you're absolutely right, it is no ones business what America does with it's constitution. If you guys want to have guns then fine. I will just say again that I feel very happy living in a country where having a gun is not the norm.

Fair enough, if i made you feel uncomfortable in any way I am sorry and hope you accept my apology. If this topic does interest you, I would recommend reading that third link when ya have the time.
Link to post
Share on other sites

For some strange reason, this OLD joke pops up in my mind:

 

The baseball team the Washington Bullets at a time decided their name was too much associated with violence and crime so they changed their name to:

 

The Bullets

 

:)

Edited by Bertil
Link to post
Share on other sites

The more i delve into the state of all of the US rights the more I realize that there is one of two inevitable outcomes that may occur, if we, citizens, do not become more active in what the government is doing.

 

If the Democrats get their way, we might as well call ourselves the Southern Canadian States. Much of their party platform follows Canadian law step by step.

 

If the Republicans get their way, we might as well call ourselves the United Gestopo States. As the current administration has already demonstrated, they feel that the citizens need rights limited and/or restricted save a limited few, for the "safety and welfare" of the country.

 

Neither party is willing to tell the truth and would rather the citizens stay divided in the hopes of continueing the confusion as to prolong their stranglehold over the country. Unless the citizens stand up and take notice, this country is destined to dissolve. It will eventually lead to the break up of this once great nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more i delve into the state of all of the US rights the more I realize that there is one of two inevitable outcomes that may occur, if we, citizens, do not become more active in what the government is doing.

 

If the Democrats get their way, we might as well call ourselves the Southern Canadian States. Much of their party platform follows Canadian law step by step.

 

If the Republicans get their way, we might as well call ourselves the United Gestopo States. As the current administration has already demonstrated, they feel that the citizens need rights limited and/or restricted save a limited few, for the "safety and welfare" of the country.

 

Neither party is willing to tell the truth and would rather the citizens stay divided in the hopes of continueing the confusion as to prolong their stranglehold over the country. Unless the citizens stand up and take notice, this country is destined to dissolve. It will eventually lead to the break up of this once great nation.

But that is the beauty of it. Neither will "get their way". We have regular elections.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminals get illegal guns all the time and their ammo is just as illegal. Look at DC, guns are completely banned, yet they have the highest crime rate of the country.

 

Lets not forget the gun trouble in England, Japan, and elsewhere where guns are severely restricted or completely banned, yet they still have gun related deaths that are extreme considering the fact that people can not own guns.

If the Democrats get their way, we might as well call ourselves the Southern Canadian States. Much of their party platform follows Canadian law step by step

What is wrong with that? Maybe it would control some of gun related crimes in the US. The stats speak for themselves.

 

-Rates for all homicides are 3.8 times higher in the United States than in Canada

-Firearm homicide rates in the United States are 8.1 times higher than in Canada

-Handgun homicide rates in the United States are 15.3 times higher than in Canada

-Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada

-Firearm robbery rates in the United States are 3.5 times higher than in Canada

-Between 1987 and 1996, firearm robbery rates increased significantly (+19%) in the United States but remained unchanged in Canada

 

It seems that taking a proactive approach to preventing criminals from getting guns actually works, opposed to just handing them a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

 

 

 

Besides....what is the rate of crimes successfully defended against with a gun in Canada, Australia, or Canada?

 

OOPS, sorry, bad question, they aren't allowed to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

It is not temporary, these studies have been ongoing since the mid 1980's.

 

I am not debating that in the US more people kill their attackers with guns, however in Canada we have many times less instances where guns cause an offense that it is quite obvious that guns do not work as a detterant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is wrong with that?  Maybe it would control some of gun related crimes in the US.  The stats speak for themselves.

 

-Rates for all homicides are 3.8 times higher in the United States than in Canada

-Firearm homicide rates in the United States are 8.1 times higher than in Canada

-Handgun homicide rates in the United States are 15.3 times higher than in Canada

-Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada

-Firearm robbery rates in the United States are 3.5 times higher than in Canada

-Between 1987 and 1996, firearm robbery rates increased significantly (+19%) in the United States but remained unchanged in Canada

 

It seems that taking a proactive approach to preventing criminals from getting guns actually works, opposed to just handing them a gun.

Considering, we have much larger population than Canada would put us on par with them. What isnt reported are the higher homicides from other devices that Canada, England, and Japan have over the US.

 

By the way, the DOJ, FBI, and CDC (all very much anti-rights) have denounced the statistic you have of the 19% crime increase. As a matter of fact, they finally admitted that crime is at an all time 27 year low. They stated that crime has been steadily dropping the entire 27 years. This report came out in 2003, so that means since 1976 crime has been decreasing not increasing.

 

 

Edited for this..

 

By the way, there are more guns in American hands now and more Americans owning guns than anytime before the ban. That's right, since the ban became law, more people started buying guns. Yet, lo and behold, crime still dropped. It is also worth mentioning the that states with the lowest crime in all areas are the states that have the right to carry law. Which quite obviously blows the entire backbone of your stance out from under you.

Edited by aeromaestro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering, we have much larger population than Canada would put us on par with them. What isnt reported are the higher homicides from other devices that Canada, England, and Japan have over the US.

It is RATES and not totals. I do not see how that puts the US on par with us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is RATES and not totals. I do not see how that puts the US on par with us.

Yes, I have seen those rates. And all they do is a blanket coverage without factoring all variables. Thus giving incomplete and inaccurate results.

 

Lets say for arguements sake...

The US has 69 murders in a year and Canada has 33 from firearms. That would be just over 2 times the number, yet they do not take into account the obvious population difference between the two countries. Even if such a study did take that into account, they are still omitting other murder device stats that would "balance" out the truth of total murders in comparison to each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it again, it is a RATE... not a TOTAL!!

 

A rate is when you take the number of murders per lets say 100,000 people that way it takes into account the difference in population. A total would be, lets say 1+1=2. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, the statistics are not compelling. I can easily point out statistics and research that DO NOT support your claims. In fact I have already done so on this board in the past.

 

 

It comes down to basic rights and the ideals upon which this nation was founded and operates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE (dave @ February 11th, 2005, 02:54 PM)

The entire Constitution is subject to interpretation. If someone doesn't agree with a particular interpretation of an amendment, it doesn't mean they oppose the amendment. Just that interpretation. For example, we have freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constution but it does have limits.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry

ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect

the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning

may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the

probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William

Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.

Recommended reading...

 

http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=32

 

http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=33

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, the statistics are not compelling. I can easily point out statistics and research that DO NOT support your claims. In fact I have already done so on this board in the past.

 

 

It comes down to basic rights and the ideals upon which this nation was founded and operates.

Good, I will not try and dictate what is best for your country. We did not have a bloody revolution to gain our independence, we gained it after the British signed it over to us. I guess it is one of those things that you have to be American to understand :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry

ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect

the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning

may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the

probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William

Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.

Good quote , Bong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...